skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It would be sad if it wasn't infuriating. If they had only influence over their own lives then this would only a sad story. Idiots like John Lee decide the cancerous policy that configures our society. They as well be demons because their entire lives seem to be dedicated to torturing human beings by contorting their lives into an unnatural and subordinate lives as if it's the only thing that gives them pleasure.
I'm not trying to suggest that "they're out to get us", just that once a group gets a taste of the power that comes from suppressing speech, it can become quite addictive and the goal posts for "safe" speech can shift.

To see this dynamic played out in different circumstances, look at the Euphemism Treadmill[0] (as mentioned elsewhere in this discussion) and Purity Spirals[1]. It may be bad for business to encourage this nonsense, but as echo-chambers become less diverse, they can exert more pressure on platforms to enforce their rules for them.

[0] https://englishcowpath.blogspot.com/2011/06/euphemism-treadm...

[1] https://unherd.com/2020/01/cast-out-how-knitting-fell-into-a...
Don't forget the OPM hack! The spooks compiled a self-blackmail database and couldn't even keep that secure. Yikes.
MacKenzie Scott, is one example in my opinion.
DOME is 1 year old! Here is The Powerful Plugin Update
I remember this as a Firefox plugin back in the early 2000's. Why is this news?
Philips ( the former Dutch electronics giant ) actually built housing, schools and sports clubs for its employees. They were not the only ones during that era ( early last century ). These iniatives are not to be confused with company towns.

The intent was to 'elevate the people'.
There are three possible outcomes, I suppose:

- $350m is enough to completely rewrite the policies across a large swathe of the US. The input of the public and other campaigning groups is swept away by this tsunami of money, and people are read their Zuck rights on arrest.

- $350m isn't enough to move the needle. In some ways this is a more frightening outcome, that that amount of effort - five SpaceX launches or one medium-sized company market cap - can't change a system that's entrenched against it.

- countervailing lobbying is spending another $350m in the other direction, so the needle remains unmoved.

None of these are particularly great. It's not really surprising that the average non-billionaire thinks that merely stating their case isn't enough to achieve positive change and it requires burning things down.
China/India,
There will always be some who are freakishly good at manipulating visual symbols on a computer and in their heads.

Those people are practically exalted today, whereas their existence should indicate that for the vast majority of people, computers are inhumane and inefficient in the Bret Victor sense: http://worrydream.com/TheHumaneRepresentationOfThought/note....
> Why do you separate users of /r/wsb from traders and hedge funds, as if those are different people? My guess is that majority of users there are traders and employees of such funds, simply using yet another talking space.

Because the subreddit is famous for just losing money and lots of people just not knowing what they're doing. I'm sure there are a few traders on that reddit but I suspect it's like a professional programmer joining a dev bootcamp community. A whole bunch of people who are just learning and are doing crazy things. (I did crazy things when I was learning, hell, I sometimes do crazy things now)
I meant as a default.
Invest in a good attorney who specializes in employment. Don’t use a generalist attorney because they won’t be familiar with the nuances of employment contracts or the specifics to your jurisdiction. $700/hour may sting momentarily, but it’s peanuts in the long run. They also may be able to help you negotiate better salary, equity, terms, etc. A good one will be able to give you a sense of how they can help you and the general cost before you engage. Don’t just sign the updated contract (especially if you just relocated from California to a new state).
>The billions these people have literally wouldn't exist if it weren't for them.

Says who? To me it seems far more likely that if Zuckerberg's Facebook never struck it big, that Myspace Tom or some other social media company owner would be worth a similar amount instead.
The worst part about this observation is that this is the very reason being given for why twitter isn't getting kicked off of AWS. Because they're putting in a good faith effort to moderate, it's just "hard".

This is just about power and money, the chances that many of these HNers aren't losing money due to the actions of /wsb is low. I have no doubt many of the posters trying to defend the move are being a bit disingenuous. Not all for sure, but certainly some of them.
Here's a thought that could potentially have bad consequences but is there a TOS for people commenting on issues on github? Can people be banned for repeated offenses?
Show HN: CodeKeep, Google Keep for Code Snippets
That sounds like a good compromise and the kind of discussion that people should be having.
How do you use virtual Desktop in windows?
WSB is an open space[1], accessible to ordinary retail investors. The majority of the money may be from large funds, but the majority of discussion is from working schmos who day trade as a hobby. That's very different from the closed environment we associate with high finance.

[1]theoretically, in practise I'll predict it's about to be Septembered into oblivion

edit: formatting
Thanks - I thought it was a clear explanation of the basic forces/processes driving things, at least the financial aspects. Now I can see how to fit in the information (accurate? I don't know) that someone else on HN said - that owners of large blocks of stock are driving the price downwards at times by selling to each other. If this is true, then the simple thesis of the Infinity Squeeze is wrong and explains why short sellers keep piling in. Somebody is going to lose money somewhere...

But I have no idea, I am not in finance and don't take anything I say as fact.

Sociologically, there are a whole lot of different things driving it and I look forward to the book examining all those aspects.
By the very nature of being anonymous and avoiding publicity, wouldn't you not hear about them?
Government’s attack on its own citizens are getting to a ridiculous level, this ban against encryption is obviously disliked by 99% of the population and will affect them adversely.

Government is showing that they don’t care about well being of their citizens by continuously pursuing these type of proposals.

I think people in society should drop the civil contract all together, obviously government has devolved into a tribal state where they do everything in their might to protect a select few, hence people will need to drop their contract with the current one and build a new one.
In the end, it doesn't matter.

These are email companies. But end to end encrypted email is a mess and hard to implement when everyone else doesn't follow a standard.

With or without EU's snooping what is more likely to happen is that people will migrate to messaging systems that the EU can't snoop: WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, etc.

That will happen either because they're more private or because everyone else is there or because they offer a lot more features and less spam.

I bet that when the EU tries to mess with the messaging players the public outcry will be much louder. For email, very few will care.
Retail warranty is usually 1 year, but this is B2B.
In your analogy, the food is the reserves the bank has.

You eat your food (lend), check if you have enough food in your fridge and if you don't you go to the grocery store and get more. Never mind how much food you eat, for the purposes of your fridge, the grocery store has an infinite supply.

So, independently of how much you eat, you can always fill your fridge. You don't stop eating because you are afraid you can't fill the fridge again.
How is borrowing then selling 140% of the available shares legal? How is that not market manipulation?

This is the market at work. This was taken too far and the market has a method for correcting this behavior and we're seeing it now. The difference is retail is going to win AND there's no backroom deal to be made to stop the bleeding.

We NEED financial reform but we need to look at what allowed this situation in the first place, not ways to silence what are effectively the whistle blowers.
To add insult to injury, There are ads on perl.com about "Start programming with Python"
My cheat sheet is: For transactions, postgresql. For analytics, clickhouse. For cache, redis. For search, elasticsearch. For objects, anything s3 compatible.

Anything else, I really have to do in-depth research and comparisons because 1.) Each database has their own pros and cons, 2.) These pros and cons between dbs tend to overlap and has each of their own gotchas, and 3.) These pros and cons also improve overtime where some problems brought up earlier might be addressed already in the lastest releases.

CMU Database Group's YT channel is also worth checking out for introductions on some databases.

https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCHnBsf2rH-K7pn09rb3qvkA
I see MacOS windows freeze up all the time with the beach ball.

Current GUI frameworks are based on a leaky abstraction in that there is a single drawing thread and if that thread hangs the UI hangs. (e.g. as all the classes and objects are using the same resource to get work done, any of them can stop any others from doing anything at all despite private/protected/encapsulation etc.)
Letting private companies enforce their terms of service may not be a perfect alternative, but it is a reasonable one and has been somewhat effective.
Password managers are supported via scripting integration. GNU pass, lastpass, keepass, and bitwarden are all supported, you just need to have the respective local CLI client installed.
BlackRock may have raked in $2.4B on GameStop's retail-driven stock frenzy
I completely agree but currently, the way things are, we'd need very intelligent tooling that would be able to parse an entire project and give you some meaningful insights -- in order for you to have a shorter and more impactful onboarding.

Thing is, nobody wants to produce such tools for free. Plus, they'd be a huge competitive advantage so even if a company invents such a tool they're very likely to use it for their own gain and not to help the entire programming area at large.
I would put my stuff in github too even though I'm skipping the social feature because it is simple and familiar and it is legal to do so
But... but... terrorists!

Seriously though, we do need to acknowledge that there are some baddies who wont hand over their passphrases no matter what law enforcement does to compel them.

That said, I'm not sure it's really such a big deal. After all, terrorists will always have access to E2E encryption as long as they have access to general computing tech. Making E2E encryption illegal just hurts law-abiding citizens.
...aaand I just looked and it's in their FAQ. Just didn't see it before.
Umm, so there are current news reports that poorer countries won't be able to get vaccinated until 2024. If the number of mutations is proportional to the number of people infected then even if the entire populations of wealthy countries are vaccinated, it seems like the chance of variants that evade the vaccines arising in outside populations is high. Herd immunity in wealthier countries would not protect them in that case.
Thanks for elaborating. I mostly agree with what you're saying here (and thanks for including a local example!). That said, I think the following isn't the correct portrayal of the situation:

> To me people who cling their freedom to utter words that a significant portion of their fellow compatriots find offensive, look exactly like that. Picking a silly battle, and entrenching themselves.

We're not talking about people who "cling to their freedom" to say what they want to everyone. We're dealing with a group that used language allowed by its local culture, that suddenly got in the spotlight, and now the rest of the world is trying to pressure them into conforming to the norms used elsewhere. To riff of your example, it's like the wide world suddenly noticed Tuscany is a place, and decided to condemn people living there for insulting the Christian god on a regular basis.

I mention this point because, in my observation, this was a common pattern in on-line communities, particularly around forceful introduction of Codes of Conduct. Outsiders would enter a niche community, take public offense at the local language norms, mobilize a wider Internet crowd, and force the community to change their norms under threat of heaps of negative publicity. To me, this kind of behavior reeks of... colonialism.
I don't consider myself a "5% programmer", but I'd definitely agree that one of the big measures of my improvement as programmer had to do with my ability to quickly figure out how a system works, and my ability to manage the mental models involved.

Compared to who I was, say, ten years ago, I'm better at grokking the system in general. But for many projects keeping the entire thing in my head is impossible, so another thing I feel I've gotten better at over time is how to figure out which part of the system I need to hold in my head as I work on things.
I don’t see #2 as being a bad thing. Political change should not be a simple formula of Increase money to achieve goal.
What about all the people who lost jobs at GameStop when the board got pissed the stock was in the toilet? You have a case of a hedge fund that was playing games to manipulate the price of a stock downward for a quick 400% profit the last few years with what appears to be no hedge on the other side of the bet. They could've bough calls to offset potential losses but they didn't because that wouldn't have meant such impressive gains.

People who should've known better got caught with their pants down and I have absolutely no sympathy for hedge funds.
What about EFF organizing a $5m worth campaign for a pro-privacy advocate?
Not directly answering your question, but something I thought was relevant.

I recall some years ago, there was a movement to encourage large donors and philanthropists to make themselves more visible, rather than donating anonymously, in the believe that this would encourage other wealthy people to contribute as well, a kind of peer pressure or leading by example.
> The reddit traders are only making a killing if they're selling these inflated positions. At some point somebody will be left holding the bag, odds are it will be a bunch of people from wallstreetbets and other retail investors that are late to the party.

This isn't your typical pump and dump. The plan is to bleed Melvin of every last cent, and transfer it to WSB. Melvin is forced to buy, no matter the price.

While some individual redditors might lose money, as a group they'll make a huge profit.
> Ideally finance is meant to be about allocation of capital. If a market is allocating capital to a dying company just because meme, then the market isn't serving its purpose.

Do you believe in it's right to give power to somebody, whether it will be a government, private party, or a class to rule over allocation of capital, and decide whose capital allocation is good, and whose capital allocation is bad?

There is a country that tried, they name to it was USSR.
Which attributes IDs are you referring to?

Current_Pending_Sector + Reallocated_Sector_Ct + Offline_Uncorrectable + ???
In terms of a Kindle-like laptop for writing, I’ve seen people enjoy the Freewrite Traveler (though it’s not for me):

[1] https://getfreewrite.com/products/freewrite-traveler
it is usually used in reference to the customer, but in a natsec/cyber context can also mean the citizen[1].

https://www.routledge.com/Handbook-of-Surveillance-Technolog...
Disclaimer: This is my experience from many short travels to EU countries and having a lot of friends due to job network (my work promotes a lot of friendly work connections from many EU countries. As a whole, we work hard, we play hard).

Europe has a philosophy of "feeling peaceful". Police, intelligence, surveillance, etc. is not done openly, on your face. Instead it flows just beneath the surface.

There are a lot of civilian officers around and police officers are not very visible. Same for borders and higher security places like airports.

If there's something suspicious happening, the concentration is increased invisibly. If something really happens, the area is silently surrounded like a python death hugs its prey, and it's over.

This is possible with intelligence and surveillance, communications sniffing, etc. If you increase encryption, there's a risk of blinding security services. You may need more overt operations are much more manpower to keep tabs on everything.

I'm an encryption proponent. I support it with all my being. Also, I'm aware that being able to see everything can and is being abused.

However, I need to be a realist here: We're addressing the wrong problem here. Is encryption required? Undebatably yes. Do everyone has a right to privacy? Undebatably yes. Do we want to be secure and need security services? Possibly yes.

So, we need to solve the problem of security with the presence of encryption. I.E. Security in a past-encryption era. The no-encryption ship has sailed. Trying to bring it back with the force of law is a last ditch effort. We need another solution to allow security services to their job with the presence of encryption, and without weakening it.

I do not accept someone can just read my office messages or conversations with my family just because somebody may be trying to make a bomb or planning an uprising.
The counter element is interesting:

<img src="http://count.freeyellow.com/cgi-shl/count.exe?df=tamaleking...." alt="**" nosave="" width="100" height="30">

Interesting in that it calls a windows executable. Haven't seen that before, although it of course makes sense in cgi-bin.

Also interesting are the headers returned by Apache:

HTTP/1.1 200 OK

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 13:34:42 GMT

Content-Type: text/html

Content-Length: 14792

Connection: keep-alive

Server: Apache/2

Last-Modified: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 09:02:49 GMT

Cache-Control: max-age=3600

Accept-Ranges: bytes

Etag: "39c8-49b0c90420040"

Expires: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 14:31:11 GMT

Age: 211
Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex Annual NASA Day of Remembrance
If your spideysense is tingling about new clauses, talk to an employment lawyer (or a union if you are a member of one) in the jurisdiction that you live in. That's really the only way to get valid legal advice, and you want to understand what these clauses mean from a legal perspective. Usually they're written in legalese and the defined meaning of something in legalese tends to be a bit different from the coloquial meaning.

Also, don't forget that even if some of the clauses they're trying to impose on you may not be legal or enforceable where you live and work, it usually takes a court to make that determination. So it's a matter of understanding what the impact of these new clauses is and what risks you take by accepting them.

And please, please don't accept the "oh, but we're never going to enforce those clauses". You don't want to be the first person they get enforced against. If the employer comes back with that statement, ask them to take out the offending clauses.
For everyone willing to talk about "key leverage points in the social graph" it's weird how they won't call those people leaders.
I commonly find this advice on the internet and it’s never worked in practice for me. Most companies have standard legal contracts for all employees. Changing them is expensive because they need to pay lawyers and convince managers. On the other hand, asking for more salary is a question that pretty much any manager deals with regularly. So I usually do that. I find that there’s a dollar value I can put on most legal clauses as long as I understand them. If I can’t put a dollar value on it, and it really makes me uncomfortable (after speaking to my lawyer) Id just walk away.
I think it's reasonable for people to want to limit that. The trouble is that you would need to require brokers to prevent short selling stocks that have been already been borrowed and short sold. Aside from tracking a tree of stock ownership changes at the brokerage level, this would de facto create two similar but different assets for every equity: those which are "clean" (have never been sold short, or the short position is closed) wnd those which are "dirty" (have been sold short at some point and the position is not closed).

This is trickier than it might sound, because you are in some sense restricting the rights and capabilities of some subset of the shares. That has valuation implications.

I am not saying it can't be done or even that it's undesirable; just that the mechanics of this are nontrivial to enforce.
Yes, for just this reason I am beginning to remove my projects from Github. I have "given back" by posting my Haskell libraries to Hackage, where they may be used and inspected by all. I'm not going to "give back" by maintaining software to the specifications of others, free of charge.

This level of "giving back" is not trivial: I have often benefitted from seeing the source code of other projects and deciding I don't want to use the library, or seeing the code and deciding to modify it or take a different approach - or seeing the library and realizing that I wanted to try something similar, but this library shows me why I shouldn't do it. Maybe others will similarly benefit from seeing my stuff. If they see my stuff and think it's deficient, wonderful! Alter it to make it fit your needs, or use it as an inspiration for your own fresh rewrite.

But I'm not maintaining software for other people. God bless people who do; that's wonderful. But it's perfectly OK to just post stuff up in case someone else wants to use it. When people see the code on Github they think "oh I can make feature requests" or "I can send a PR." Fair enough - Github is "social coding" after all. So I just won't put code on Github.
I set NextDNS as the DNS Servers in my Samsung Q60R QLED, one week later, and guess who the number one offender is for telemetry.
and it just "happened to be" done after the short fiasco. Or is your argument that they weren't using dirty words until after the fiasco started?

That they can is not being argued, that they did it now is the issue.

In the same vein, no one would argue that a male manager shouldn't be able to schedule a female employee on their shifts. But when that male manager asks for a date and is refused, the action takes on an entirely different tone.
I have an anecdote contributing to a testing framework (of all things) that had similar policies. Turns out it's pretty hard to write tests making sure something asynchronously executed never happens sans introducing (flaky) "timeout"-based tests.

At some point the maintainers were like, "yeah, this draft PR looks like it's doing the right thing so let's just merge it without a working behavior test"
So fractional reserve banking, once they hit reserve fraction they can't legally lend more cash out right?

This also doesn't occur with shares, you either own the share to lend or you don't? There are no new shares created only loans on a fixed amount of shares in circulation unless the company issues more shares, right?